search for: hardlinks

Hi, I detected a silly behaviour of rsync when new hardlinks of already synced files are created: Scenario: There are a local directory and a equal remote directory created by former run of rsync. Create a hardlink from a already existing file (both inside the local directory). If this hardlink has a filename with comes before the original filename when...

...together in the source. > > I discovered this because my backup system has a stage which checks > that the generated backup directory is truly semantically identical to > the source volume. When --link-dest is used in a backup mechanism the > effect is that if files were previously hardlinks on the source > volume, but something makes them no longer hardlinks by breaking the > link and copying the contents and attributes of the file, this change > is not reflected in the backups. > > The bug can be reproduced with the attached shell script. > Run the script, and obse...

On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > So, let me do a straigth question: is someone using dovecot/LMTP with hardlinking? To me, this seems a _very_ important feature, and I wonder if I am doing something wrong or if the feature (hardlink+sieve) simply does not exists. Hardlink+Sieve has never worked. The fix is a bit complicated. Here's my

Hi list, many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used. The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie: some message-specific data was appended to the actual mail file). Here you can find the original thread:

...ame(foo-887) recv_file_name(foo-75) received 6 names recv_file_list done get_local_name count=6 /local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.chgrp/to/ mkdir /local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.chgrp/to/ : No such file or directory (1) unexpected EOF in read_timeout ----- chgrp log ends FAIL chgrp ----- hardlinks log follows + fromdir=/local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.hardlinks/from + todir=/local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.hardlinks/to + mkdir /local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.hardlinks/from + name1=/local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.hardlinks/from/name1 + name2=/local/build/rsync-2.5.5rc1/testtmp.h...

Hi, hardlinking (-H) works perfectly while using a syntax like -avhxSDH <SRC> <DEST> Now I have to mirror multiple SRC directories which contain hardlinks. e. g: src1/a is a hardlink to src2/b -RavhxSDH SRC1 SRC2 DEST does not preserve hardlink a and b in DEST. Is there any chance to do that? Thanks lopiuh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/attachments/2013080...

...ftware Hi, does it means that when you use before_sieve and after_sieve in your dovecot configuration the hard-linking part works? I don't need help to upgrade to CentOS 7.x, but before going this route I would understand if this is how dovecot/pigenhole are expected to work (don't use hardlinks) or if I misconfigured something. RedHat / CentOS are a very common base OS, so I wonder if I am the only one hitting this problem or no. Thanks. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Hi all, I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and compression. I already scanned the list for related information and I have an idea of how things works, but I would like to have a definite answer. System spec: - CentOS 6.6 x64 - dovecot-2.0.9-8.el6_6.4.x86_64 RPM package/version - sdbox mail store 1) About hardlinks: w...

Il 23-12-2019 12:04 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: > On 19/12/19 11:08, Gionatan Danti wrote: >> Hi list, >> many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical >> messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used. >> >> The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered >> messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie:

Hi Javier, thanks for your reply. I already checked SIS and, while interesting, is not what I want, because: 1) it can be difficult to restore a single message/attachment from a backup 2) only the attachments, and not the entire messages, are deduped. Message-based hardlinks really exists for a reason. The good news is that I found _why_ they are not working: it depends from how dovecot and its sieve plugin (pigenhole) interact. Basically, if I define anything for the before_sieve and after_sieve variables, dovecot stops creating hardlinks for multiple copies of th...

I'm copying a partition that has a bunch of hardlink based snapshots (-aPH). I think there's about 250,000 files in each backup and between 100 and 200 snapshots. Earlier today, I saw the files had completed and it was making all the hardlinks. I thought it would be "not long" but it's been making hardlinks for 12 hours (at least). There's only 36Gb in snapshot, the data didn't take too long. but now there's no progress indicator and ??? hours left. Would it be straightforward to include progress when creating...

..., RCPT have sieve filtering. For example: - if no RCPT has sieve filters, hardlink is OK - if only one RCPT has sieve filters, hardlink is OK - if two or more RCPTs have sieve filters, hardlink is NOT working. Some time ago I reported that, when disabling the sieve_before and sieve_after options, hardlinks worked; however, this really was a side effect of what written above. So, let me do a straigth question: is someone using dovecot/LMTP with hardlinking? To me, this seems a _very_ important feature, and I wonder if I am doing something wrong or if the feature (hardlink+sieve) simply does not e...

The rsync 2.5.6 TODO file mentions the need for hard link test cases. Here is one in which a linked file is unnecessarily transferred in full. # Setup initial directories mkdir src dest dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=10000 of=src/a 2>/dev/null rsync -a src/. dest/. ln src/a src/b # At this point, a & b exist in src; only a exists in dest. rsync -aHv src/. dest/.

...Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: dieter.ferdinand at gmx.de QAContact: rsync-qa at samba.org hello, i have a big problem with my backups because rsync don't make hardlinks in this situation: old dirs: b/1 b/2 new dirs: a/1 a/2 b/1 b/2 all files in directory a are hardlinks to files in directory b if a new dir have hardlinks to files, which are in directories, which are processed after the new directory, no hardlink was made, all files are copied! i think, this is b...

...there are two identical copies in my mirror - hardlink detects those copies and links them together - the file attributes (permissions, ownership, mtime, etc.) of a hardlinked file in rep_a change upstream - rsync detects this change, updates the destination file in-place (it doesn't break the hardlinks) which leads to an inconsistant view of the file attributes in rep_b - depending on the order of the mirroring commands, the second rsync job for rep_b might reverse the attribute change (again for both repositories) Recapitulating, once two files are hardlinked, rsync will break the hardlink only...

...r, and they are using maildir. There are about 24,000 messages in there (non-zero-byte files). This number sounds about right. All other folders (including INBOX, Sent, etc) are still working fine. The problem, though, is there are over 815,000 zero-byte-files in the cur directory, all showing as hardlinks (looks like maybe a whole bunch of duplicates for each of the real message files in the cur directory). There are also 43 non-zero-byte message files in the new directory, and 1,515 of these zero-byte hardlinks (to message files in the new directory). There are also no non-zero-byte message file...

...--inplace --delete --delete-excluded - --stats --progress -v --itemize-changes SOURCE DESTINATION """ I detected the following issue when RSYNCing a bunch of Mercurial repositories. It is very dangerous, because it will corrupt files. When cloning a local repository, Mercurial uses hardlinks for performance and disk use. When one of the clones updates a file, the file is "unlinked" and replaced by a new file, so history can diverge gracefully. The problem can be trivially reproduced like this: 1. Create a text file "a.txt" with a bunch of caracters inside. 2. Cre...

On 14/07/15 08:17, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Gionatan Danti wrote: > >> On the other hand, private (per-user) sieve file works without >> interfering with hardlinks. In a similar manner, disabling sieve also >> permits dovecot to create multiple hardlinks for a single message. >> >> Does someone know if newer dovecot versions change anything in this >> regard? > > LMTP adds Delivered-To header, so all delivered messages are unique...

Hi! It's me again with another --link-dest issue: I am using dirvish (www.dirvish.org) to create daily backup on disk images. dirvish is using rsync with --link-dest pointing to the last good image. This creates images with hardlinks to unmodified files. So far so good. Now I want to create a "current" filetree with hardlinks pointing to the last image. rsync -vaH --delete --stats --numeric-ids -x --link-dest=/path/to/lastimg /path/to/lastimg /path/to/current This works except when an existing file has been modifie...

...ed. I know (and tested) that for ext4 the max number of hardlink for a single file is 65000 but I can't get a limit on XFS. Due to the fact that I can't get good resources from google search, I tried to reach its limit with a script creating a regular file and create in another dir many hardlinks. Currently I have: -rw-r--r-- 8730476 root root 12 16 lug 12.13 hlink/1 My scripts is trying to reach 20 mln of hardlink so need time to finish but 8730476 of hardlinks is an huge number. Someone know this limit? Thank you in advance.